Printable View
So. We see headlines about plans that are in place to spice up F1.
This is not about those.
Give the rest of us your ideas about what you think F1 should be and how its done. i.e whether we should have a massive cost cap or no cost saving at all.
Lets hear how F1 could be improved by real knowledgeable fans, rather than the casual watch a couple of races a season fan.
Swordfish :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by steveaki13
Sorry, that's the password! :uhoh:
and now I know it. I will yet get my 1000 USD:alien:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tazio
I want to know if people would change stuff back to 2000 spec or 1992 spec
Go electric as a radical idea?
What do you guys want to see F1 as or do.
There are a few common contradictions that arise every now and then here. We could think about making races more exciting, but then again, we don't want to resort to artificial gimmicks, whatever that means. We also want to go back to classical circuits but we don't want to have boring races such as the Montmelo and Monaco ones. We crave to have circuits which penalize driving errors but we also want drivers not to get hurt.
And of course, everyone wants to go back to the "good ol' days", whatever these are, whilst conveniently ignoring how technologies and processes have changed - what worked in the 80s or 90s for a racing team will certainly NOT work today. I recall someone saying that he liked how any Joe could build a car and be competitive almost from the start in the past - well, when you've got teams who employs legions of engineers and spend gazillions in making fast cars, that's not going to happen. And there's just no going back to that situation no matter how much we'd like it to happen.
Then there's also the fact that, quite frankly, hardcore fans are usually a small part of the pie. Formula 1 teams need an income source and the fans are the people who are paying, so it makes sense for the teams to try and expand this fanbase. Is this what we want, or on the contrary, we just want to improve the quality of the racing - or better, what we perceive as quality - and ignore newcomers? We would do well to keep in our minds that the kind of people who participate in this forum are a minority - we're not the money.
Sorry for the long post. Basically, the point that I'm trying to make is that even hardcore fans don't necessarily have to be right. It's always good to fantasize how our dream F1 would be but we shouldn't deceive ourselves believing that our ideal vision would work in the real world.
Mike transcended :confused: both specs, and even considering that his teammates weren't allowed to really race him (most of the time) I personally found it very entertaining (when they had refueling) the way he would come on strong at the end of a stint, usually the first, and then refuel and maintain the same pace, as he did when he was finishing the previous one. The refueling strategy days were more entertaining, and that is even considering (imo) that their is a much more talented field now than when he raced. In fact especially since their is a more talented field. The talent is basically wasted managing tires, and just the whole race in general.Quote:
Originally Posted by steveaki13
I think I personally favour allow the teams more freedom to design and spend. Let them try different designs and then forget the artifical making races entertaining.
Let the teams hire great drivers and push the envelope of design and race on the edge again. That could potentially get drivers pushing the limit more which is exciting and also stop the conservation aspect all the time.
Yes costs would go up, but allow smaller teams to enter with a lower fee and buy certain elements and you get a field the size of the 90s again hopefully.
Its obviously not perfect but I think it would be a purer motorsport for that.
As for circuit, I stand by the fact I would get rid of some of the tarmac carpark tracks and bring back some older circuits.
I would return to mid 2000's levels of gravel and barriers. Not many people died or were badly injured in the mid 2000's and with stronger cars than ever now then safety surely would not be an issue.
I like the fact that F1 drivers should make as few mistakes as possible and maybe with gravel back like early/mid 2000's we get that punishment of retirement for a mistake.
I guess some will always argue safety, which I have no defence for, but retirement ffrom the race should be a threat for mistakes in F1.
I actually remember how a Williams engineer came up with how Formula 1 cars would look like if there were no design rules, and the thing looked striking. It was basically a contraption which would generate enormous amounts of downforce. There was one issue, though - the turning speeds would have been so high that a driver would have passed out (which, by the way, also happened with one of the first ground force cars). So that's why you need design regulations to slow the cars down. And even if you don't go to the extreme of drivers fainting because of extreme cornering speeds, you still understand that it is necessary to keep reasonable levels of speed to avoid having huge accidents.Quote:
Originally Posted by steveaki13
I wouldn't do a whole lot, actually. Just some tweaks here and there on the formula, but nothing overly radical. Wider tires, freer team tire selection, freer design parameters on bodywork, maybe some changes to what teams can purchase or contract out and still remain constructors, some way to make these engines louder and more affordable. I don't care about the fuel mileage on F1 engines. To me, that's a stupid idea promoted by whining tree huggers, who don't watch F1 anyway. Same with this do-gooder group in Europe (European Alcohol Policy Alliance) that wants to ban alcohol advertising in F1. Look, F1 doesn't glorify drinking as much as it glorifies fast, dangerous driving. What's next, making a PC rule that each driver has to be allowed to lead at least one lap of each race? Forcing each team to employ a female driver (who has never won an automobile race in her life) just for the sake of being PC and "feminist friendly" (that idea was actually floated by a blogger)? Let Sheryl Sandberg or Oprah sponsor a girl in GP3 and GP2 and let her earn a position on an F1 team (or buy her a seat, once she's won at least one lower formula race and has a super license). I'm fine with that. I'm also more than fine with scantily clad grid girls and the glamour that contributes to the show that is Formula One. Anything that dumbs down F1 or tries to make it more politically correct, I am opposed to.
Also, I want to see some group of investors take control of F1 from the private equity vultures at CVC. I'd like to see that group invest in the business and the series, and not just try to squeeze every available dollar/Euro out of Tilke parking lot tracks in dumps like Azerbaijan or Iran, while Monza and Silverstone are under threat of losing their races. And I'd like to see someone like Zak Brown take over from Bernie Ecclestone, before he starts wandering around in the paddock without his pants. Bernie claims that he'd rather sell Rolexes to people on their way to the Shady Rest Nursing Home, and ignore people 18-30, who are on their way to making it. Bernie is losing the plot, IMO. He's done right by F1 (and himself) to this point. But his time is now up. Let's have a smooth transition and protect and grow the sport again. As far as fans, it's time to reach out to new prospects (but not the "suspects - people who have ever been in sales will know what that means).
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by steveaki13
Start up an online revolution/petition, say Occupy F1 or something.
Resurect the original slipstreaming Silverstone... Hockenheim... Osterreichring... Zandvoort... Paul Richard... etc., hence no chicanes.
Increase race distances (back) to 200 miles or more. Oh, and no pre-planned pit stops.
Don't over-saturate the racing schedule where it starts to resemble NASCAR. F1 races should have the integrity of being unique.
Establish a rule that NO country can hold more than ONE race (like the debacles that we've seen here in the US during the 1980s).
Sentence Bernie to exile - to one of those dictatorship countries he seems to embrace.
Not necessarily in that order.
Interesting point about how fast cars would be unchecked.
I did not say I would give open plan to create rocket ships levels of speed. However I would give them more freedom
Less aero, less computer controlled things, more onus on drivers.
Allow designers room to design and innovate, don't give them a set of restrictions and force them to build the same car as each other. i.e. set parameters ie. size of wheel and tyres, track width, and various safety standards. Set certain requirements like flat bottomed chassis, min ride height, aero limits, then say to the designers "Show us what you can do!". Doesn't sound all that difficult to me.
As for the calander (I said this on another thread last week). 21 races. 13 are permanent events. (the traditional races) the other 8 on a four year contract with 2 races up for tender every season.
Less money finding its way into 'Wiggy the House Elf's' greedy little hands, and more of it being returned to the sport.
ZERO aero.
Apart from what the aerodynamics of the bodywork itself does, eliminate all wings.
Formula Fords can and do follow each other at close quarters and I think it makes for better racing. I would also install rear guards as per Indycar but even then, I'd want to remove the front and rear wings.
In a previous thread (the one regarding refuelling, which is definately not needed and isnt likely to come back anyway despite what Bernie might say) I mentioned part of a solution to a) rid F1 of gimmicks like DRS b) allow cars to follow more closely, therefore allowing the brave and skillful to pass and c) increase top speed and laptime without the need for more power. The solution I propose is to impose a restriction on wing sizes to the point where they are a tuning aid to balance the car and allow these to be active too whilst at the same time freeing up the restrictions to the underfloor to give greater ground effect as this is much less affected by turbulent air than upper surfaces and wings. The drastic reduction in drag and a slight increase in overall downforce would result in faster lap times, increased quality of racing, a cull of gimmicks to improve "the show" and all without altering a thing on the power units which in my view are a modern marvel and whilst not currently road relevant point the way forward for fully integrated hybrid technology which will become more prevalent in a few years time. Just my 2 cents on this one, most of what F1 is proposing is half baked and only likely to perpetuate the current situation in my view.
Less aero dependance so cars can follow closely..also engine rules - put a limit on engine size (say max 2.4L) but keep the config upto the teams, we need some variety...perhaps Merc go with a small turbo/hybrid while Ferrari bust out v12s?
get rid of tarmac runoffs and bring back gravel traps.. no more Tilketracks.
More grid girls :D
:uhoh:
For starter, bring the tobacco sponsors back. Some folks may have an opinion on tobacco sponsorship, if the product is legit, I don't see why it should be banned. After all, racing is illegal on public roads & is still by far one of the most dangerous sports. I believed the tobacco sponsors will solve at least half of the financial problems the teams are facing now & not to mention cool liveries like JPS & Marlboro.
Free to air in standard definition will boost the viewership even if it doesn't generate direct income to the organizer, i.e, CVC. The increased viewership will attract potential sponsors.
Faster car & less restrictive rules. The current crop of cars are just too slow & there is a need to address the dirty air generated rather than restricting the design. Fuel flow restriction should be removed as well.
Allow in season testing. Teams like Redbull & Mclaren pretty much have to write off the entire season due to testing ban. Mclaren is literally spending at least half a season testing the cars in the race. Teams should be allowed to test on the before or after the race on the race track. A token or penalty system may be implemented. The teams exceeding the allotted testing time will be fined or penalized with grid penalty & may claim money with the unused testing time vice versa.
Pit stop Cup. The team with the best pit stop performance will be given a pit stop trophy by the end of the season, after all, this is a team sport.
CVC needs to impose a minimum attendance to all race organizers. The race organizers will be fined if the attendance is below the stipulated number. The race organizer will get a rebate from CVC if the attendance hits the target.
There you have it.
IMO opinion nothing will help F1, because young people, the generation of F1 fans F1 needs to attract, have lost interest in cars, or driving.
Soon, people won't own or drive cars anymore. Autonomous cars will swiftly take over.
IMO, F1's biggest problem is that as safe as F1 is for the drivers, and as 'corporate' as drivers have become, F1 has lost to much of it's panache - flamboyant manner and reckless courage.
Human nature pretty much remains constant, and sad to say, part of human nature makes us slow down to gawk at traffic accidents and such things.
Indeed, that the news media flourishes is testament to that part of human nature and hence the pretty universal news adage - "If it bleeds, it leads".